Mormon leaders' landmark speeches on religious freedom

The belief in and importance of religious freedom has long been a topic leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have addressed. It is stated in the 13 central beliefs of the LDS Church, and has played a large role in the religion's history.

This week, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve will be honored as a 2013 Canterbury Medalist presented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Canterbury Medal is the Becket Fund's highest honor, recognizing those who have demonstrated courage in the defense of religious liberty. The medal dinner will be held in New York City on Thursday, May 16.

In a video produced by The Becket Fund, Elder Oaks declares the importance of religious freedom and his concerns for limitations that exist today.

As discussed on the Mormon Newsroom, religious freedom is described as essential and valuable to all people — especially to those who have experienced intolerance in the past. Mormons, along with many other religions, have a history of faith-based persecution.

Yet, it was during this time that church leaders emphatically taught the importance of religious tolerance and liberation. Joseph Smith, the first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often taught of such acceptance.

Recorded in "The History of the Church," Joseph Smith explained to the early members of the church just how deeply he felt about religious liberty:

"If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing before Heaven to die for a 'Mormon,' I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbytarian (sic), a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination."

When composing a letter with the basic beliefs of the LDS Church — and what would later become known as the "Articles of Faith" — Joseph Smith wrote, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

While the LDS Church has since become a global and widely respected faith, leaders continue to discuss the importance and necessity of religious freedom.

God instituted governments for our benefit and He holds us accountable for what
we do with them.No government will remain in peace without equally
protecting the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property,
and the protection of life.

Religion is instituted of God and in our
exercise of it we are only amenable to Him, unless our actions infringe the
liberty of others. Human law has no right to interfere in prescribing rules of
worship or to dictate forms of public or private devotion. Law is meant to
restrain crime but not control conscience, to punish guilt but never suppress
the freedom of the soul.

I summarized D&C 134:1-4 because every
time "freedom" and "LDS" are said together, there are complaints
about alcohol, abortion, and gay marriage etc.

The truth...

Drink all you want.When you drink somewhere you traveled to, limit it to
protect others.

Gays are free to be gay.Society is likewise
free to not sanction the formalities gays observe as civilly commendable.

We don't believe in taking your choices from you. But
our/society's beliefs and choices are likewise ours to make.

Noodledoodle: Have you every been to a predominantly Catholic area or
predominantly Baptist area. They all reflect the predominant culture. You
can't get alcohol in Flower Mound, TX but you can get it in the City next
door. Some whole Counties are dry. It is a reflection of the predominant
culture. That's what bugs me about people who more here from places like
California because of the culture and then want to change it. Perhaps you
should get out more.

Many people now days are in essence saying that religious people should not vote
based on their personal values because somehow that takes away from the rights
of those who are not religious. I have actually read comments in the past on
these threads from people demanding that others should not vote on morally
sensitive issues if their values are religious. This is a very dangerous idea
and frankly, I do not see religious people demanding the non-religious give up
their voting rights because of a different set of values.

Dallin Oaks
has written many brilliant papers that explain the foundational principles of
freedom. I am thrilled he was given this opportunity to speak. Education on this
subject is woefully inadequate in recent years.

Personally fron what I've seen of Elder Oaks recent discussions of what he
terms religious freedom, he is actually making more of an argument for freedom
from scrutiny on the part of religions than any real concern over the right to
worship being threatened. Some have argued that if gay marriage is legalized
that Churches will be required to perform such unions but I think the evidence
for this is slim. Anyway the discussion came about as a result of the backlash
following the Church's heavy involvement in the pro-Prop 8 campaign where
honestly I think the Church and many members were surprised at the criticize
they publicly received. If churches can legally enter into the political
arena— and they can— then I then hey shouldn't expect any
special treatment or protection from any criticism that follows.

"God instituted governments for our benefit and He holds us accountable for
what we do with them." This, and similar claims made by religion, are where
it goes off the rails. Because this statement may well be entirely untrue. It
should be considered nonsense until proven otherwise. There's no proof to
any of it, and simply saying it's true doesn't make it so. If god
instituted government for our benefit why is it that so few of us feel it
benefits us, and why are there so many types of governments? I can see the
hodgepodge of styles and benefits of governments around the world being a
manmade exercise, but by no means as proof of a benevolent, omnipotent creator.

"Society is likewise free to not sanction the formalities gays observe as
civilly commendable."

---------

That would be true IF
we did not have a constitution that states that we need to treat all citizens
who are simularily situated as equals. It is NOT up to our religious beliefs to
allow us to make laws that exclude law-abiding, tax paying citizens as less
than.

It's not a mere few who believe in moral relativism,
it's a trend sweeping the nation, even our leaders.

Obama argued
in 2006:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated
translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to
reason."

He feels that my religious opinions should be amenable
to reason. That my views should be scrutinized. That may work for many religions
but to a church of revelation it simply isn't reasonable to have such an
expectation.

I don't dictate my beliefs into law and force
everyone to obey. My religions opinions are limited to "This is what I
believe is right. I am voting to support that belief." which is no more
aggressive or forceful than anyone else who is voting.

Democracy
demands that we all share in the vote, not that we all must explain our vote in
a way that everyone will agree in order to cast it. Any doctrine to the contrary
does not establish a free people. Many, including leaders from the various
political parties, support such a doctrine already.

They may preach tolerance and diversity, but unfortunately many religions feel
that believers and non-believers alike ought to have to abide by their
teachings, and therefore they seek to enshrine them in statute. Can't you
live your religion without making its doctrine (on alcohol, marriage, abortion,
or whatever) the law of the land?

I understand your concern. I also do not believe in
treating other human beings as "less than" in social class, and as less
valued. I believe that God is "“No Respecter of Persons”"
and likewise would not judge us unequally. God gives us the same opportunity to
change and be blessed. If we didn't all have that same chance we would be
unequal and God would cease to be God.

Our equality exists in our
freedom to choose, not in what we get as a result, or the consequences.

Engaging in sexual activity of any kind is a choice. Society has a right to
observe, recognize, and honor whichever traditions we choose. This takes nothing
away that didn't already exist.

If you choose not to recognize
certain activities as honorable or worthy of receiving sanction from the
community, or the government we form, then you choose law over relativism.

Either you tolerate all acts (sexual or otherwise) or what you call
equality is robbed.

For those who feel that any religion is having undue influence on the
government, let us first realize that imperfect men make the laws. Secondly,
no one should be forced to believe in any particular religion. For those of us
who are Christians, we believe that Adam and Eve gave us agency by partaking of
the forbidden fruit. This agency gives us the right to choose for ourselves and
to let the consequence follow.

Lane Meyer: You are right. We shouldn't have laws that treat people
differently. That's exactly why we should have never had the Civil Rights
Act of 1965 (passed by Republicans) or the Non-Discrimination Law Salt Lake
passed last year. While it might be morally wrong not to hire or rent property
based on race, sex, or other factors if it is my business or my property you
should not be taking my rights away from me. You can't have it both ways.